OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

But it's not an issue of insulin or anything else: low-carb diets work
because (some) people eat less on them.

What about those that eat the same calories but change the ratio of
P/C/F
and/or the timing and feeding frequency (breaking up the cals into 6
meals
instead of 3)?!!! Or eat the Carbs + Protein in first 3 meals and fats
+
protein inlast threee meals. etc.

What about 'em?

relevant in terms of hunger/caloric control.

And nutrient partitioning/metabolism.

I am sure you are aware of the insulin- and leption- regulated
metabolism of
foods

Very.

so, when calories are strictly controlled (and things like adequate
protein and EFA's are given), how come differences don't show up in
studies? seriously, just about any variation you can care to name has
been tested.

OK - I believe you and will not pursue/read about it further. It is just
that the theory was/is so nice.

Hey, I know. I really wish it worked that way, I really do.

Any differences in terms of actual weight or fat loss amounts to noise
(the only major differences occur in studies comparing inadequate to
adequate protein intakes).

I am surprised! As I said, the studies I read (and posted some) leads one
to believe the theoretcial model of nutrient partitioning would lead to less
BF and more (or mainatained) LBM.

See my other post. The studies you pulled end up changing so damn many
variables at once that you can't conclude **** except that it's easy to
get crappy nutrition studies published.

Lyle